NASA email suggesting proposed coverup?

After the Columbia disaster, it sounds like at least a few people wanted to go through the email system and delete anything that could be potentially
incriminating...

And who says that NASA is forthright with thier information?

NASA Worker Proposed 'Scrub' of Web Site

Friday August 29, 2003 7:39 AM

By TED BRIDIS

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - NASA braced quickly for the intense investigation into the Columbia disaster, according to newly disclosed e-mails that include one
proposal by a midlevel employee at headquarters for a ``complete scrub'' of the agency's safety office Web site to remove outdated or wrong
information.

The employee, Wilson Harkins, warned that such information could become ``chum in the water to reporters and congressmen.''

``We wouldn't want to be sucker punched by someone based on something we have posted,'' Harkins wrote.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration records show that 18 routine documents were added to the Web site since the Feb. 1 shuttle accident and
none was removed. Spokeswoman Melissa Motichek said Harkins was trying to make sure the site was accurate and up-to-date.

I sure would like to read this email myself. Have you been able to locate any site that has the actual text?

The things that come to my mind are:

1. What authority did the writer of the email have? He might have been a midlevel manager of a group that has nothing to do with the safety webpage
he was alluding to. It could have been a comment like me u2uing you and voicing concern over the WITD fiasco....doesn't mean that I have any power
over it.

2. I agree that everything should have been frozen. It sounds like it was (the additions were probably related to ongoing operations such as the ISS
and probably HAD to be added for new procedures)...nothing was removed.

3. I agree with Harkins' comments although he was a flaming idiot to put them in writing. Outdated materials on a safety website is, indeed, chum
for reporters...so was Harkins' email.

DR...if you can find the text of the actual email...be sure and share it with us!

1. Not all of the email conversation is contained in that document. Did you notice the edits???

2. It appears a committee was formed to create the "official line". Some will want to claim that is evidence of a conspiracy or a cover-up.
That's not how I see it, or take it. This committee was most likely tasked with trying to figure out the questions that would be asked prior to
being asked so that they could ask the questions first and get the answers...no surprises.

3. Even though part of the conversation has been deleted, it appears that this was early on in the team forming process (maybe the first tasking
email sent to the group) and it appears it was a petition for brainstorming - i.e. So let's start thinking of what we will be asked type stuff.

Thanks for the post - I was discussing the FOIA stuff last night - I think some of the requests point in certain directions that im sure NASA doesnt
want to go down. However can you guys on the board tell me - if a request for a FOIA release is made - does it have to be published ? even if denied -
or can they bury the ones they dont want to under whaterver spurious reason they can find ?

to follow my favorite maxim - its not always the answers - if you look close at the questions intent is obvious

Just wish, if its is that open, we could have disclosure like this in the Hutton Inquiry in the UK

Thanks for the clarification - I did wonder. But i found what was requested interesting to say the least - I am sure this was a catasrophic accident -
but was interested in where people were loocking for answers. Sorry if i dissapoint in a look for smoking guns - just rather - shouldnt the shuttle
have systems for retrieval if things go awry on take off.

It looks like the answer is no. I don't think we'll be able to find a compiled list published by any government agency of denied FOIA requests.

Concerning your comments on fixing the problem. That will now be the great debate. There will be two camps:

1. Yes, the problem should be fixed and risks reduced further for future shuttle missions.

2. No, we should not be further distracted by trying to design out further risk in the shuttle program but should that time and money to move on in
space exploration development.

Something to keep in mind when thinking these things over: YES, we lost 7 people and a big-bucks craft. BUT, the 7 people KNEW that when they were
strapped into those seats, laying on their backs, waiting to be launched into orbit, that they might not even live long enough to make it there. We
can mourn OUR loss, but we shouldn't be distracted with some misplaced grief concerning the loss that the astronauts suffered. They knew full well
the risks (i.e. they knew there were risks that hadn't even been discovered yet).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.